<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br><div><div>On Dec 6, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Jeremy Malcolm [2012-12-06 15:15]:<br><blockquote type="cite">On 04/12/2012, at 12:01 AM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Anriette Esterhuysen <<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">This does bring us back to our 'Best Bits' goal about developing and<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">proposing principles for internet governance. Should we not begin to<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">plan our next steps?<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Absolutely.<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">How can things realistically be moved forward in a positive,<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">constructive way?<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues.<br></blockquote><br>This is a most excellent summation and suggestions.<br><br><blockquote type="cite">We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want?<br></blockquote><br>I think a stock-taking of where things have moved on the issues highlighted in the WGIG documents then would be helpful.<br><br>I've some notes from conversations I was having with different people at Best Bits in terms of a 'positive agenda', that I hope to type up and elaborate on, and send to the list.<br><br><br>-- <br>Pranesh Prakash<br>Policy Director<br>Centre for Internet and Society<br>T: +91 80 40926283 | W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a><br>PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>